Friday, September 6, 2013

The Grandiosity of Gun-Rights Fanatics

14 comments:

  1. So then the question would be, have we seen any examples that would support this statement? Both of a disarmed populace becoming the vitcims of genocide or an armed one preventing it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, that's one question. Another is do you really think armed citizens in the US could stop their annihilation if their government were intent on wiping them out?

      Delete
    2. Yes. It would be as bloody as any other civil war, but a tyrant cannot keep power over a people who won't accept tyranny.

      Delete
    3. The hypothetical question, which you failed to answer, Greg, is so far-fetched that to answer it seriously makes you a grandiose lunatic.

      Delete
    4. Wait, did Greg answer it, or fail to answer it? I mean, it's pretty obvious that he answered your question from reading the exchange, but your comment seems to tell us that he did and didn't answer it.

      As for your idea of what makes someone a grandiose lunatic--you show that that term has no meaning if all it takes to meet the definition is to answer a hypothetical question.


      (Especially since, if Greg had given a serious answer of no, you wouldn't be scolding him for being a lunatic, but would be calling him rational.)

      Delete
    5. I answered your question, Mikeb. I do hope that a civil war won't happen again here, but if our government ever decided to do what you suggest, many soldiers would take sides with the people, and those people would rise up. It would be a long, ugly war, and it's not clear that any country would exist after it ended.

      So how about you control freaks just relax?

      Delete
    6. The seriousness with which you talk about that absolutely impossible situation makes you a paranoid and grandiose lunatic as well as a gun-rights fanatic.

      Delete
    7. So is that an admission that you were wrong when you said Greg didn't answer the question?



      And thanks for doubling down on your pointless statement that answering one of your hypotheticals is a sign of mental instability. It's just more proof that you are so demented that it infects those who talk to you.

      Delete
  2. This, of course, is one of the greater gunloon myths.

    Famous gunloon, Donald Kates used to run around telling everyone that if the Jews had guns--there'd have been no Holocaust. He has since recanted.

    In addition, it's important to note that all historians note that Hitler, when coming to power, actually relaxed gun laws in Germany.

    Of course, Saddam Husseins' Iraq completely blows the gunloon thesis out of the water. Saddam's Iraq had a gun ownership rate that exceeded the US. An Iraqi citizen could even own a fully automatic weapon. Yet, Iraq suffered under a dictatorship that lasted almost 4 decades.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. Hitler relaxed gun laws for people he found acceptable. The laws relating to Jews were made worse.

      2. Many Iraqis liked Saddam. He gave them goodies. That's the key. When the tyrant can buy or subdue the people, he stays in power.

      Delete
  3. Gunsucks make me sick. Tonight, in Dallas, a 46 YO white guy shot a black kid in the face because he didn't like black kids. This is the NRA world, and we are all forced to live with NRA trash and NRA shits in it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment is a tissue of conflation and rage. Can you make a reasoned argument?

      Delete
    2. My reaction to you gunsuck criminal morons is one that many share. We are seeing a greater and greater rage of those forced by the NRA to live in a world of heavily armed criminals. We are fucking mad, and we are not going to take it any more.

      Delete